Association of Sacred Singers of Thessaloniki «Lycurgos Petridis»: the teachings of Chrysostomos Stamoulis are heretical

Following the article - opinion of Panagiotis Andriopoulos, who comments on the “attacks” - among others by Metropolitan of Kythera, Seraphim-against the Professor of Doctrine and Symbolic Theology of the Department of Theology of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki and Dean of the School of Theology of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (2021-2024), Chrysostomos Stamoulis, we publish the facebook post of the Association of Sacred Singers of Thessaloniki «Lycurgos Petridis».

In it, the Association criticizes the professor for his views on a number of theological issues, the most prominent of which is the virginity of the Most Holy Virgin Mary, the Mother of God and Theotokos.

The full text of the post follows:

Heretical teachings of Chrysostomos Stamoulis, Professor of Doctrine and Symbolic Theology of the Department of Theology of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki and Dean of the School of Theology of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (2021-2024).

1) About the Birth of Christ and by a native woman
H. In his book Eros and Death (Akritas, Athens 2009) and in his reprint (Armos, Athens 2019), H. Stamoulis writes: «it is a classic expression of a mentality that has created a specific climate within Orthodox spirituality, where the habit now prevails almost completely, and therefore depressingly, in order to... to speak about the Mother of God, to use the term ‘Virgin‘ [...] we must recall today that the struggle of St. Cyril and the Third Ecumenical Council of Ephesus, against Nestorius, was not for the virginity of the Virgin Mary, but for her divinity. This is because the real mystery, the great mystery, is not virginity, but divinity. [...]

Virginity is a secondary reality, which is ontologically true only when it shows the divinity and thus the divinity of the incarnation, from which it derives any meaning. I would thus dare to say that virginity is a tool, like the theology of Mary's odes, in order to prove, against every doctrine that denied the divinity of Jesus, in the clearest possible way, that Christ was not a mere man, but the incarnate Son of God the Father.

That person who accounts for both virginity and godlessness and proves that Mary is who she is because he makes her who she is. Her own contribution is limited to her free decision, her acceptance, that is, to give up the whole of her being in order to become the place, the land of the unforgiving, not a mere channel where God will be incarnated. And I think that such an explanation allows us to say the otherwise ‘heretical‘ thing, that if there were no need for an external ’sign’, ‘an external ‘symbol’, which would prove the divinity of the mystery - the humanity of the mystery was proved by the presence of Mary anyway - Christ could have been born of a native woman.’[1] .
What even Arius and Nestorius did not dare to say about the Virgin Mary, Stamoulis supports. The birth of Christ from a native woman! That is, the incorruptible becoming corruptible!

Stamoulis« phrase, that »Christ could have been born from a native woman«, does not differ from the »Arenestorian" position about Christ as a creature, since, according to their doctrine, no real union of the uncreated God with the created man can occur. According to the Orthodox Church, Virginity and Theoternity are not separated, ministering the one and the same mystery of the birth of the God-Man.

As for the verb «limited», as well as the expression «six times not a mere channel», which Stamoulis uses in connection with the affirmation of the Virgin in the message of the archangel Gabriel, these are in his own logic of devaluing the mystery of the Divine Virginity.Anyone who thinks of the number of mentions of the Blessed Virgin in the Church's services, and especially in the Divine Liturgy, where in every small or large context the Virgin Mary «of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, the Immaculate, Blessed, Glorious, Our Lady of Glory, the Mother of God and the Blessed Virgin Mary» is mentioned, can understand, to the highest degree, the mystery of the Divine Virginity.

Obviously, their salvation-centered appeals disturb those who suffer the depression of denial of salvation from God, who has a Mother on earth. How, then, can Stamoulis rectify the word of truth, when, according to the literary artist N.G.Pentzikis, the person of God «cannot be understood except in worship and in the temple, through the intercession of Tekusa, the Baptist, the Apostles...»[2]?;

It becomes obvious that «the virginity» of the Mother of God is in no way a mere «tool», as Stamoulis argues, noting that this «purpose» is «of the opinion» that it was «interrupted by the doctrinal establishment of the term ‘evervirgin‘ as late as 533’ at the Fifth Ecumenical Council. We would like to note for this, that the word ’just», which he uses, «verbal pains», according to Professor Kurembele, in no way reveals the slowness of the Church, for an everlasting term[3], but reflects the everlasting and certain faith of the Eucharistic Community[4]. This is also expressed pictorially, with the face of the Virgin Mary surrounded by three stars, one on her forehead and two on her shoulders, as Professor Boosalis points out [5]. Thus revealing her ever-presentness, before the tone, during the tone and after the tone.

In the Fifth Ecumenical Council, therefore, «nothing new is said by the Fathers, but the reaction to a new attack on Theotokology and its soteriological significance is translated through technical terminology»[6]. .

We would like to note here, that the book Eros and Death by Stamoulis was republished in 2019, by the «Armos» publications, without any change, on the part of the author, as far as the key doctrinal errors that it presents, and had already been pointed out by Professor Kourebeles in a special monograph, entitled Iconostoxia, Critique of the post-patterned view of the Virginity of the Virgin Mary.

2) About the ideological characterization of the original sin
Stamoulis writes: «Unfortunately, under the influence of a late and peculiar gnosticism, Christianity has almost never accepted man as he is. It believed, and still believes, that man is what he is in his nature, a body and a soul imprisoned in the ideology of original sin. That is why he was reduced to the limits of his anthropology - always based on the mystery of the Incarnation, where God takes on man in his entirety - to the creation of a man of another, a man who is certainly not the man whom God's love and charity have called for.’[7] He is a man who is not the man whom God's love and charity have called for.

3) On the contamination of the objects of worship
Stamoulis notes: «I think that the Church, in the context of the divine economy, can find ways for the Sacrament to be performed, but also for security measures to be taken, because the objects that are in a place of worship, in a place of prayer, can easily become sources of infection and spread this infection to the faithful, but also to members outside the worshipping community’.

Here, he forgot that the objects used in the worship of the Orthodox Church «receive a special consecration by the bishop in a relevant, short sequence. The liturgical vessels, such as the chalice, the chalice, the chalice, the tongs, the spear and, secondarily, the censer, the liturgical books, and the icons must be consecrated by the high priest with the anointing of holy myrrh, since they do not constitute common vessels, but holy objects, suitable for the performance of the Divine Liturgy».

Until the thirteenth century the «consecration of the sacred vessels was not done with a special sequence», when «the first liturgical blessings of consecration of the Discalced and the Potion» appeared. But the «liturgical use» of the sacred vessels alone was always an atypical way of consecration[8].

And the question arises, if the consecration of the vessels, with the Holy Myrrh, makes them holy, or if only by their use they are made full of the Grace of the Holy Spirit, how can they, for Stamoulis« »theology", be a source of defilement for the faithful? Apart from the fact that as sacred vessels they are approached with the practice of purity and reverence by the priests, is it possible that a dogmatist, who also professes to be an ecclesiastic, can de-idealize their sacred consecration and their encirclement by the holy spiritual grace? Unfortunately, Stamoulis, as a sacramentalist, starts from the logic of the de-idealization of the Church and an alleged need to reach out to the churches.

4) About prostitution
Stamoulis writes, «the Church, which contains everyone and everything [...] is [...] the communion of the persons of the Holy Trinity, but it is also the whole world, which participates in a way of being». «And of this Church» he speaks and says «that this Church can also be a prostitute». «What does fornication mean?», he asks, to which he replies, ’the denial of the relationship, that is, the person who denies the relationship is a fornicator«. »Don't go into moralistic schemes«, he notes, at the same time inviting the group to be directed »to the ontological character of things«. Continuing, he says that: »fornication in the Church, according to Chrysostom, is not entering another body, but covetousness«. *****»Fornication«, Stamoulis adds, »is considered as such only when it is an element of covetousness«. He concludes: »In the Old Testament there were polygamous relationships«[9].

Wanting to interpret the text of the writer N.G.Pentzikis, we understand his reasoning that even if some people think that the Church is not worthy (like the girl he met) or even worse if they think that the Church is last in the social ranking, without reputation, like the prostitute woman, whom the Prophet Hosea married, this does not alter the character of the Church which, according to Pentzikis, is «by God and by consent [...] gift in Christ, as is our existence, regardless of whether we are suppressing it through our present life».

The Church, according to the Apostle Paul, does not bear «a speck or a wrinkle or any such thing», but is «holy and unblemished»[10]. Therefore, Stamoulis« hermeneutic of »cracks« because of the sins of believers is not based on the conceptualization of the Pentzicus text, which proclaims for Paul that he served as »interpreter of the form on which the risen God-Man was lovingly made to bear witness"[11].

Stamoulis, curiously enough, even involves the name of St. John Chrysostom, saying that, according to the saint, fornication is considered a sin only when it is an element of greed. And we ask, when, indeed, is fornication not an element of plural, since it annuls the blessed union of marriage, i.e. «and the two are one in the flesh»[12]?;

As for the polygamy of the Old Testament period, it is explained because of the then deprivation of divine grace, which is instead richly provided in the New Testament with the blessed monogamy, i.e. the union of man and woman in the holy sacrament of marriage.5) Uncertain God?;

Foreign to Orthodox doctrine is also Stamoulis« position on the Son's supposed exit »from the certainty of the loving Trinitarian communion«, in order to »go to zero«. »The Son of God«, he notes verbatim, »comes out of the certainty of the loving Trinitarian communion and goes to zero. He knows that he will be crucified, that he will be spat upon, that he will be thwarted, and he chooses it."[13].

Can creation, in Orthodox Theology, ever be considered as zero, when it is, for Orthodox Theology, the exact opposite, i.e. the movement of God «towards (created) man from the moment of his creation»[14]? In the Uncreated God there is no gnostic will which is contrary to the natural will, expressed (and as incarnate) by the Word of God. Primal things, then, from a professor of dogmatics.

On this note, we recall the speech written by St. Philotheos Kokkinos, Patriarch of Constantinople, for St. Gregory Palamas: «It is necessary,» he emphasizes, «to be born a sinless man and to seek sinlessly and not to help the willingly sinful man.»[15] Thus, from what «certainty», for Stamoulis, does the sinless and sinless God proceed in order to incarnate and save sinful man?;

6) The culmination of theological privacy
Stamoulis stresses: «The Eucharist is really a sign, which symbolically shows the unity of the ecclesiastical body, among themselves and with Christ, that is the Eucharist»[16]. Here, he goes to the height of his theological idiosyncrasy, speaking of a «sign» and symbol, as far as the Eucharist is concerned, in complete contrast to the Orthodox Church, for which the Eucharist is the Communion of «the life-giving and horrible gifts»[17], which takes place «for the benefit and sanctification of our souls and bodies’[18].

In fact, as Saint Barsanufi notes, he transcended human standards, becoming a perfect man in spite of himself[19] and Saint Nicodemus the Athonite conveys his words: «and I in each of your holy members receive the medicine, that is, of the holy body and blood.’[20].

At the moment, therefore, when Stamoulis wishes to impose abstinence from the Sacrament of the Eucharist,[21] because of a crown virus, he is unable to follow the expressions of Fathers, such as Saint Barsanufi, who speaks of the daily metochion. Along this patristic line, the Metropolitan of Bihac and Petrovac of the Patriarchate of Serbia, Sergius, emphasizes that the Coronation ’will not shake our faith nor will it remove us from Holy Communion, but it will certainly separate the wheat from the tares, the faithful from the unbelievers, deepening the already deep chasm between Good and Evil«[22].

The above choice of Stamoulis, therefore, apart from being unorthodox, is also illegitimate, because he was hired by the Greek state in order to teach Orthodox Theology and chooses heterodoxy. So, he is once again[23] tormenting the Church by talking about its role in the public square[24].

7) Individual plastic spoons for Holy Communion
«I report to him», says the journalist, «the descriptions that my friends brought me from a village where the priest performed the sacrament of Holy Communion using individual plastic spoons». Stamoulis «agrees». Continuing, he notes: «A central Church statement could be issued referring to this possibility. You know, perhaps the magnitude of the danger we face has not been realized.

The Church is a living body that must be functionally adapted to the needs of life, not to be seen as a reality structured in a way that does not allow for change. If the Church would show this openness and affirmation in one decision, if it would kneel down beside the anguish of modern man, the whole world would embrace it»[25].

That is, Stamoulis accepts the multiple spoons in place of the one Holy Tweezers, which reveals the Virgin Mary, who alone transmits Christ to us.
In this way, he admits the perishability of the Body and Blood of Christ, since the Holy Gifts, according to his theory, can transmit disease and death!!!8) «The rules [...] come and go»?;

We read in an interview with Stamoulis: «Orthodox theology has rules. Orthodox orthodoxy has rules. Every Ecumenical Council would make some rules and say that the members of the Orthodox community should live like that. But rules are not the dominant thing in orthodoxy. The dominant thing in orthodoxy is the Gospel. The rules are for man and therefore come and go.»[26].

How, then, can Stamoulis disparage them, when they «by the interpretations of the doctrines they contain, reveal and regulate the incarnation of the doctrines in the concrete forms of life’? What do the canons mean to Stamoulis? Ephemeral news? Are they not the living of the Gospel in history, according to the Orthodox Faith?;

The Canons of the Church may belong to time, but they are not enslaved to it, because they express, every time, the truth of the Faith.

9) The unbuilt under the laws of the built?;
Stamoulis concludes: «So then the doctrinal teaching, the teaching of a Church must be understood to be always under the Constitution and the laws of a favoured state». Apart from the idiomatic theology that he expresses in his present statement, placing the uncreated under the laws of the created, i.e. placing the incorruptible subject under the laws of corruption, this is not consistent even with the secular view of Church-State relations that exists in the Greek State, the so-called synodality, which presupposes their mutual respect and equality[27].*****

10) Is the sanctification of the believer in life unattainable?;
«Are there people taking communion? Are they dying of cancer? Do they die of various diseases? Yes. So, when we speak of immortality in the context of the Eucharist, we do not mean immortality now, because we all die, but immortality of soul and body in the last days.».

The answer to Stamoulis«, again, novel, as far as the Orthodox doctrine is concerned, position is given through the blessings of the Divine Mercy: »Virgin Mary, Mother of God«, the believer implores, »claim me to my last breath to receive the sanctification of the Blessed Sacrament, for the healing of soul and body«[28]. The Orthodox Christian asks, that is, for the present healing of soul and body, but also for the future, as is shown in the other prayer: »May your holy Body, Lord Jesus Christ, my God, be restored to me for everlasting life, and your honest Blood for the remission of sins. And may this thanksgiving be unto me for joy, health, and gladness; and in thy dreadful and second coming, let this sinner rest in the right hand of thy glory, through the intercession of thy most holy Mother, and of all thy saints. Amen"[29] .

If we say that the immortality of the soul is about the ultimate, then we are not admitting God's unconverted actions. That is, that the unconverted God constantly enters into historical time with his unconverted actions, and thus the eschata enter into history. Otherwise, according to Stamoulis's idiomatic «theology», we accept the unsociability of the created and the uncreated, which is believed and proclaimed by every diatribal theology that is ideologized.

But the blessing of the Annunciation of the Divine Liturgy also says: «Remembering this saving commandment and all things that have been done for us, the Cross, the Tomb, the three-day Resurrection, the Ascension into heaven, the right hand of the throne, the second and glorious Second Coming». This means that the Second Coming is considered to be coming. That is, with the Passion and Resurrection of Christ, the last things have entered into history. Therefore, how dare Stamoulis proceed to separate the unity of the present and the eschaton, as far as the immortality of soul and body is concerned?;

From the books: a) Anastasiou Om. Anastasios Anastasios Polychroniadis, Unabridged Orthodox Theology, Kyriakidis Publications, Thessaloniki 2021. b) John G. Kourembele, Iconostoxia, Altintzis Publications, Thessaloniki 2019.